Is FULL FRAME better? The TRUTH about CROP FACTOR.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 เม.ย. 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/simon to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code SIMON
Sign up for my email list and get a free e-book on How to Shoot Backlit.
www.simondentremont.com/freeb...
Want to take amazing wildlife photos? Check out my new course with 20 modules and over 5 hours of content, no fluff!
journalofwildlifephotography....
My name is Simon d'Entremont and I'm a professional wildlife and nature photographer from Eastern Canada. This video will show you how and when to (and not to) apply the sensor size crop factor to aperture settings.
I use Topaz Labs software for noise reduction, sharpening and upscaling:
topazlabs.com/ref/1943/Simon/...
Music in intro: "Nicer", by Houses on the Hill. Find that, and other sound effects at Epidemic Sounds
share.epidemicsound.com/0fbndn
My equipment:
Canon R5 body amzn.to/3S5jtBf
Canon R6 body amzn.to/3ZYu6HC
Canon R8 body amzn.to/3M0Xoj7
Canon R5 battery grip amzn.to/3PVg8Sy
Canon RF 600mm f4 amzn.to/494Zd8S
Canon 100-400 EF II amzn.to/3FhWrPP
Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 amzn.to/45zDP8F
Canon 17-40 L lens amzn.to/3y71MGt
Canon RF 16mm f2.8 amzn.to/3M3i0HI
FLM Tripod (CP 34 L4 II) and Levelling Head (HB 75)
flmcanada.com?aff=sdentrem
Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3FjGkkW
Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3Fhj7zD
Rokinon 135mm f2 lens amzn.to/3QfqIFi
Sirui x-k40 ball head amzn.to/3rRzIHf
Sirui lightweight Traveler 7C tripod with head amzn.to/3M0XDe1
Manfrotto Video Head amzn.to/3tpUzBO
Wimberley Gimbal Head amzn.to/3rSijhC
Hollyland Mars M1 field monitor amzn.to/3rQCRaa
Jackery portable 240 lithium-ion battery amzn.to/3QgBmvg
ProGrade Gold 128 GB CF Express amzn.to/46wv40g
ProGrade Cobalt 325 GB CF Express amzn.to/3RSUtNo
ProGrade Gold 256 GB SD amzn.to/48R3CMq
Zoom H1n field recorder amzn.to/3tAoJCE
Comica shotgun mic amzn.to/3REWN73
Rode Videomic NTG shotgun mic amzn.to/3tCeAW8
Rode Wireless GO II mic set amzn.to/45vsIxw
Lenscoat neoprene camera bags amzn.to/3SNiqmz
Lencoat rain cover for 500mm F4 amzn.to/3SGtyl2
Falconeyes F7 LCD panel amzn.to/3y75z6F
Lowepro 450 AW large backpack amzn.to/3xZOHyL
Lowepro Flipside 300 small backpack amzn.to/3SOTWt7
Mindshift 36L (closest available) backpack amzn.to/3ZXIiAH
GuraGear 30L bag for 600mm f4, use Code Simon for 10@% off
guragear.com/?ref=fKL1R1coS7su99
DJI Mavic Air 2S drone (flymore combo) amzn.to/3M3ijSS
B&W circular polarizer, 77mm amzn.to/3SKc6Mx
B&W 2 stop ND Filter amzn.to/3URyIN6
B&W 6 stop ND filter amzn.to/3y6gs8G
B&W 10 stop ND filter amzn.to/3fwRIjs
Nikon Monarch 5 8x42 binoculars amzn.to/3rXt2qX
Blackrapid retro-classic shoulder strap amzn.to/3y0wUHt
FjallRaven trekking pants amzn.to/3rSisSc
Heat 3 gloves (shell only) www.theheatcompany.com/en-us/...
Heat Company Merino Wool liners www.theheatcompany.com/en-us/...
HP Omen 17.3" performance laptop amzn.to/3S1vd7O
Synology NAS storage amzn.to/3RVfFSX
16 TB hard drives for NAS amzn.to/3S03Hrk
Follow me on:
Facebook / sdentrem
Instagram / simon.dentremont
Website www.simondentremont.com/
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.75[2/2] คุยแบบนี้แล้วจะจบกี่โมงพ่ะย่ะค่ะ!!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N6E8njWH7Zg/mqdefault.jpg)
Before anyone's head explodes from my assertion (that is tricky to understand, granted) that larger sensors let in more light so improve image quality, but that exposure is not affected by sensor size, I'll explain it here, as the video was getting long. Consider the analogy that photons of light are like raindrops (they are in many ways). If you have two empty pools in your backyard, one adult-sized and a kiddy pool, after a rainstorm you will notice two things. One, that the larger pool collected more water in total and that two, the depth of the water is the same regardless of pool (sensor) size. In camera sensors, low light noise performance is a function of total light (photons, raindrops) collected while exposure is a function of light intensity (the depth of the water in the pool). Hope that helps.
If you do a 20MP full frame shot and crop a quarter sized 5MP shot nothing has changed BUT making the 5MP shot bigger (to match the size of the 20MP) you'll notice more noise.
That's the same as zooming into a 20MP full frame shot vs a 20MP m4/3 shot (as it's equal to a crop of an 80MP full frame zoomed in).
i.e. the benefit of a larger sensor is you're viewing it with less magnification. By not zooming in, you'll notice less noise. It's got nothing to do with more 'total light'.
e.g. if you stitch 4x m4/3 5MP same-sensor shoots using the same lens you used on the full frame and compared the two photos, they'll be exactly the same (even though the 4x shots are taken separately). It's hard to compare as most electronic sensors are made differently. If you could, try this with the same film (like Kodak Porta 400). Take 4x small frames vs 1x full frame and you'll see no difference.
@@dogpadogpaYou’re right, but they’re two sides of the same coin. The wider viewing distance is indeed minimizing the noise in the Signal/noise equation while the amount of light increases, and is included in the calculation of « noise » in the equation, as noise is minimized by wider viewing distance as it gets smaller/has less variation. It can be described as both « more light » or « less noise » and mathematically they both do the same. But, the standard in the sensor design industry and physics is to describe noise impact by the amount of light, rather that the viewing distance to the noise, even if they do the same thing in this case.
@@simon_dentremont The amount of light that reaches the sensor is determined by the total light coming from the field of view, the size of the objective lens, and the light transmittance of the lens. The exposure doesn't change because when you zoom out by the crop factor (say 35mm to 23mm), the wider lens lets in the same amount of light again as the 35mm on the FF. In your pool/bucket example, imagine there is a giant funnel above them that captures all of the incoming water to fill the pools -- this is what the lens does. You will get the same volume of water (exposure) but different depths when using the same funnel size. Think also of a magnifying glass focusing in the sun -- you can move it back and forth to have a smaller or larger focused light circle, but the total light is unaffected unless you change the size or clarity of the magnifying glass (objective lens size).
@@simon_dentremont Ah, let me rephrase this. You're taking a panorama photo of three 24x36 photos or have a larger sensor camera of 24x108 that larger format won't create less noise because it's... larger. If you joined the three 24x36 and compare it to the 24x108 they all should be exactly the same.
Now if you bring that to comparing a cropped photo vs a full frame photo you'll notice it's the cropping/zooming/magnifying that's showing more noise NOT that the full frame captures more 'total light'. The intensity is what's important. (imagine a photo of the moon on a cropped sensor vs a full frame using the same lens, same sensor build, the full frame captures more... empty dark area?)
this explanation is the best I've seen, maybe high MP camera's high ISO performance can also be explained with tiny walls(pixel edges) inside the pool that takes up a little space.
I always watch videos of people trying to explain crop factor. Often they are over simplified, over complicated, missing key points, have wrong information, and/or overly opinionated. But this video is probably the best explanation I have seen in years.
Thanks very much!
Clear and and concise explanation of a complex topic.
Only someone with a comprehensive understanding of a subject can explain it simply.
Well done and much appreciated.
Agreed. I think Tony Northrup did an EXCELLENT job, but this one just pips it. I'm going to start referring people to this one from now on.
Edit: I've changed my mind. I'm going to refer people to BOTH, because Tony goes into more detail, and it's good to be able to see two experts agree & support each other's assertions. (I have no idea whether our host has ever watched the Northrup's presentations on this topic or not, though)
Agreed but I personally would add or clarify that the "telephoto effect" of pulling Backgrounds towards camera is why say 400mm@f8 for example... you can still get JUST as blurry BG same as say an 85mmlens at f2 - the bokeh in the telephoto shot is the same as it would be at 85mm f5.6 it only APPEARS blurrier because the telephoto glass enlarges the background which is blurred to some extent beyond the hyperfocal distance... the 400mm isnt achieving a shallower DOF its simply magnifies its hyperfocal area beyond the subject. Compression is the word I was looking for I think.
Simon is the goat
The respectful way you communicate information makes you the best photographer/educator on TH-cam in my opinion.
Thank you for helping lots of people and doing what you love for a living, Simon!
Wow, thank you!
I’m always frustrated when TH-cam photographers explain crop factor and depth of field. First time I see it done right, and in a beginner-friendly format on top of that. Congrats!
This is another video that shows how fundamental your knowledge is and how good Simon is able to explain things, that so many other people have already explained - Simon explains is best! He really does. Not only in words, but in illustrations too.
Thanks. I’m relieved. In order to be comprehensive enough for the comments section not to to be full of « but you forgot… » I feared that I had made it too complex to follow.
@@simon_dentremont it depends on the knowledge of the viewers here, but I think it was perfectly explained even for beginners who understand the basic terms.
@@mariposa.2507 Yep. I'm a beginner and this video is very helpful to me.
I went from a Sony A7II (fullframe) to a OMSystem OM-5 and love photography even more now. I can't put a word to it really, but I just find it more enjoyable with the OM5.
That’s a great camera!
OM System is the best for me since so many years. Its so portable and the IS is amazing. You can easily hold the 150-400 f/4.5 with the internal optional 1.25 TC by hand. This is my lens to go. Afraid of ISO? Try Topaz or so. Full frame is so 1980, but it has a great lobby and the lobby did a really great job with manipulating the people.
PS: @simon_dentremont - 2 card slots? Ever had a look at these cameras? Every professional mFT camera has 2 card slots.
Anything is better than Sony.. no just kidding ! I just couldn’t resist. Enjoy your OM1. I’ll stick with my system. Been happy with it for 15 years . Still able to use all the lenses and bodies no matter what combination and I like the way it works.
@@gerhardbotha7336 yeah it's finally a really emotional thing to so many users. Most of the people act and thing emotionally and not rationally. This also includes price, weight, size, quality.
@@Xairoo He mentions that at the very end without really going into detail. He said you can find professional bodies in m 4/3 and showed an OM-1 with the new 150-600mm
It’s good to learn that different sensor sizes don’t allow the same amount of light in even at the same maximum aperture. I use a crop sensor XT30ii
Thanks, Simon. For the small amount of paid work I do now that I am retired, depth of field is king. As a retired EE, I kind of backed into a second career photographing electrical equipment failures due to my connections in the industry. As such, I find micro 4/3 the easiest way to get the deep depth of field which is desirable in these cases. No artistic interpretation wanted in this use case! I use different sensor sizes for personal work, so as always, match the tool to the end goal. Really enjoy your videos.
You said it right. Don’t fuss about what gear you wish you had but rather learn and master how to get the best pictures with the gear you do have. I used to fuss about MegaPixels a lot until I watched so many of your videos. Same gear but I’ve upped my photography.
Note that at 7:28, the depth of field remains consistent only if you shoot from the same distance. Doubling the distance and cropping the image would yield an equivalent depth of field without altering the aperture. I just think its important to mention that there are two methods of achieving the same result.
Yes, those wanting more shallow depth of field from a smaller sensor can use a higher mm lens and take a few steps back.
Indeed, there is an advantage to this approach. It allows photographers who may not have access to very fast lenses (with apertures like f/1.4) to achieve a shallower depth of field without needing to open up the aperture as much. By doubling the distance between the camera and the subject, which may not always be practical depending on the space available, the effect can be achieved. However, Simon's point about using a faster lens is also valid. One drawback of this method is that cropping the image to achieve the desired framing can reduce overall image quality, so the choice depends on the specific application.
It wouldn't be the same result though since you're not in the same position. That's probably why he didn't mention it. You might end up losing elements of your composition if they get obstructed by you having to move backwards for example
@@athmaid Achieve identical results in field of view and depth of field after cropping, albeit with reduced brightness. Give it a try!
@athmaid You may lose some elements, but you might also want to lose some elements. It is different, and we work with the tools we have. That is why I carry a full frame camera and an MFT camera. Each has their strengths.
I love my 61 megapixels full frame Cameras, I can make large photos in very high quality and I can crop to APSC format in 26 megapixels and still get really good photos, it is like having two Cameras in one Camera ! So for me full frame Cameras are the best and most versatile Cameras.
Wait til you try medium format then.
@@jamestonbellajo No surprises there for me, I am a former professional photographer where I used 6x6cm 6x9cm, 4x5" and 5x7". Today I love small, compact and light weight camera gear !
Finally, a short and 100% accurate walk-through of the key differences. Tony Northrup did this years ago, with the same information, but not as short and on point as this. Most tend to misunderstand how things work. I've had so many discussions with people refusing to come to terms with the fact that applying the crop factor to the aperture make sense.
Finally the missing piece. I was so confused when I always heard in videos etc: "I use xy mm at x f" and when I used the x2 equivalent lenses on my M43 the DOF was always different. The corelation with aperture should be voiced lauder than it currently is. Thank you for this video Simon!
At about the 5:10 mark, you say using the shorter focal length makes depth of field (DoF) deeper. However, later you accurately describe applying the crop factor to the f-stop to allow the shorter lens to deliver an image having the same DoF.
If you were to mention that this outcome occurs because both lenses have the same 8mm entrance pupil diameter and this quality - not focal length - determines DoF, that would clear up some potential misunderstanding.
Everybody neglects the entrance pupil!
Very insightful indeed. At 1:50 you said people have misconception that crop sensor lenses shrink images to fit a smaller sensor. Wondering if that is indeed the case. Specialized crop sensor lenses do create images (circular) that can only fit the area of a crop/APS-S sensor size and when used on full-frame they do not cover the entire sensor (36mm x 24 mm). So, in a way, crop sensor lenses do shrink the images to cover crop sensor or smaller area.
No, the image circle is smaller, but the subject within the circle doesn’t change in size.
@@simon_dentremont Got it. Thanks for clarifying this.
A rule of thumb is all lenses are a similar size when depth of field is the principal metric, whatever the sensor dimensions.
Yes! I have a related question: is it more difficult to make, say, a MFT 25mm F1 lens, than a FF 50mm F2 lens? (I'm guessing yes)
One of the most "putting people at ease" explanations about that "fizzics" laden topic I've seen yet, nicely done. Plus the obvious always, in my opinion, helpful "get out and shoot with what you have". Thank you !
🥰
Physics!!!!!! I went down the mathematical/physics rabbit hole several years and came away thinking that most "experts" didn't know what they were talking about.
Thanks, Simon. Well done.
"...just save some money for fast lenses..."
Could not have said it better.
That said, I sometimes wonder how diffraction plays into equivalency. Diffraction is an absolute-size thing (absolute size of lens opening to absolute size of Airy disc on sensor as opposed to f-number, which is relative to lens length - and lens width is relative to the image disc required to cover the sensor). It's fairly academic for me as I shoot a lot of low light so FF is a no-brainer.
BTW, did I see a shot from Jon Sach's 'DOF'? I worked with him at Lotus Development (before he wrote Picture Window). Either way, it's a decent *free* app on Android, iOS, and Windows; let's you plug in your sensor size and focal length and interactive see what changing aperture does. Worth a look if you haven't seen it.
Yes, I've been wondering about diffraction too. I sent a suggestion to Tony Northrup to expand his presentations on equivalency to include diffraction (no response)
Tiny correction: at 1:26 Simon gives the dimensions of a Canon APS-C sensor, and says “a bit smaller on other brands”. It's actually a bit bigger on other brands, which is why Canon APS-C's crop factor is 1.6 and other brands are closer to 1.5 (exact numbers vary in the sources I found: I’ve seen 1.52 and 1.53 given for Fujifilm X, 1.53 for Nikon and Sony APS-C, and 1.62 for Canon APS-C).
right!
In a perfect world, I could afford a Canon R6II. I'm finding myself looking to the R7 and R8. I'm focused on the benefits of the fully featured R7, such as IBIS; vs the full frame of the R8. I'm mostly still feeling lost, but your videos are helping me learn about the new products. My needs range from indoor pictures of my toddler and family, to nature (wild flowers, the coast and ocean waves, landscapes), and also motorsport (and car show) photography. I will be coming from a 6D which I bought used many years ago. My biggest apprehension with the R7 at the moment is being able to get wide enough angles for family pictures, as well as up close on flowers such as trillium, or interesting bugs.
I'm in a similar situation, except that I'm also considering very old cameras, such as 2nd generation A7 & A7R. The one I have my heart most set on is the A7C (1st gen) though
@@gregsullivan7408 I'm leaning toward the R8 at this point. I was almost considering going up to a used R6, but I really want the most modern software, focusing, and sensor. Good luck on your journey
Been shooting with APS-C for the past 12 years due to form factor and of course cheaper cost. I don't really care about the technicality compared to fullframe (although i understand the differences). The ultimate goal is the image we took, not the technical aspect of the camera
You don't need to care if you only shoot one format, but anyone shooting multiple formats very much needs to care, as unlike you they cannot just build up a set of intuitions for one format ("35mm looks like ___" works for you as a blanket understanding, but not for them). They must worry about this. I shoot APS-C, and also full frame, and also 6x6, and also 645, and also 4x5 large format... There's no way I can memorize separate intuitions for all 5 formats, I need to use crop factor to retain any sanity.
@@gavinjenkins899Sensor size (or film size) doesn't mean much, but composition does, into the end, after all. Just for the record, being used to 36x24mm small picture format (Kleinbildformat) since the 80s. I only shoot 35mm & DX/APS-C. And if you shoot 4x5, 6x7 or 8x10, etc. via film, it's even exactly the same - you care only about the quality of light, your final composition, the mood, the atmosphere, the emotion, which you want to capture, within an image - not which lens, how big (or small - depends) the "Sensor" or film surface is, whatever. This is not important, into the end. When you go to dinner, you also don't ask the cook, which brand or -size of pots he used - because that would being insanely stupid, as it doesn't matter. Albeit it doesn't matter, but when you shoot into great light with a phone, it wouldn't look really, if only negledigble different, compared to 35mm, MF, etc. when watching at small sizes, one does usually see onto the web. CAs, distortions, etc. isn't a big deal at way small online viewing picture sizes, but when you print them out big, or if one does "pixel-peep". (which is kinda boring - because those folks watching at 200-400% aren't looking at their composition as a whole -but trying to find lens imperfections - for exact the same reasons, many folks of HighEnd Hi-Fi gear don't want to -*-hear-*- music, for their enjoyment - instead, they want to hear their -*-gear-*- only. And i know exactly what i am saying, i was like that for decades. Been there, gone is that. Nowadays, its still all the same - gearheads want more MP, more video features, better AF speed (all photogs are true pro sports shooters - by default /sarcasm) etc...film is way more rewarding, a haptic medium, and does make a lot of more fun, than digital. I have 3 35mm setups from different brands, and digital -just- bores me to death...but film does make a lot of fun (also mistakes) since the 80's...ongoing. Its a much more rewarding process...and no chimping, no pixel poopers.
@@marcp.1752 Obviously, depth of field etc affects emotions, so this didn't really change the conversation. So do the pots cooks use. You may not know what pots they were as a diner, it still affected the cooking anyway... so it mattered...
Some guy tried telling me today that if the numbers arent the same then its not a standard...basically saying that iso 6400 on a full frame is the same as iso 6400 on an apsc....all i could do is shake my head in disbelief...some people just cant figure this stuff out and they wont accept an explanation if it doesnt match their narrative
Got into photography as a hobby in 2018 by getting a Panasonic lumix g85. I primarily went for it because of the price point and small size which are quite nice, however at the time I was a complete novice and didn't really understand the differences between the different camera types. I would take it out with me on drives in the mountains or into work for my job's social media stuff but nothing more complex. Now thanks to you I'm learning a whole lot about photography and how to use my camera to its fullest. It's a fun journey, so thank you!
If you look at the actual mathematical formula for DOF, you will see the DOF is directly related to c, the circle of confusion, which does vary with sensor size (not pixel density). Smaller sensors have smaller c, which if why sites like f-stoppers claim that smaller sensors actually give you less DOF. However the DOF equation also includes an inverse relation with focal length SQUARED, so with smaller sensors using a shorter focal length to get the same field of view, this had more effect on DOF than the smaller c, which is why smaller sensors have a more DOF than larger sensors, when everything else is comparable.
The best lesson here is the equivalency formula of multiplying the crop factor to aperture and lens size. Thanks for that!
Pixel pitch and crop factor make a difference in noise levels in low light. Bigger area is better on collecting light. Bigger pixel pitch usually has less noise, as 24mp will have less noise over 45mp in FF due to larger size of pixels on sensors. In very bright light digital noise is less of an issue.
I own both full frame and APSC! I use the full frame for portraits and landscapes, APSC for sports and birds for the reach.
apparent reach
Let me add to all of the compliments below. What was amusing to me is that as you continued, my mind started to spin, asking how we are expected to crank all these numbers and calculations out while taking the photo at the same time!!! (Horrors!) It was about that time when you started focusing (no pun intended) that much of this discussion is things you think about BEFORE you buy your equipment. At that point, you can go back to worrying about the normal stuff like settings, composition, etc. 😅
Simply wow.. you made things easier to understand..
Glad to hear that
You sir are a true photographer educator. Thank you for providing this knowledge free of charge. You provide some of the best internet content bar none.
Great video!
I find that people usually lose the plot when it comes to ISO and "total light gathered" with crop factors. This is because:
1- ISO is standardized across sensors of different sizes in terms of brightness (exposure), but won't have the same noise levels. It's as simple as: crop sensor cameras need to amplify the signal further, for the same ISO to give the same brightness. And that's exactly what goes on! Companies do this for the sake of convenience, but it created massive confusion for many people because of it.
2- People mistakenly conclude from that, that a shot taken at F4 on FF will gather the same amount of light as F4 on APSC, and only DOF is affected. Supposedly because the exposure settings are the same. You litteraly hear this false argument all the time on the internet. "Therefore, crop factor only needs to be multiplied to the focal length for equivalency" is the false conclusion they land at.
In reality, applying the crop factor to the aperture does give you an estimate on equivalency for not only DOF, but also noise levels (or in other words, total light gathered).
In practical terms, people usually understand the concept of "losing a stop of light" when it comes to optical cropping (ie teleconverters). And while the physics are very different when it comes to digital cropping (shrinking sensors), the end result is more or less the same.
Crop factors can in fact be conceptualized more or less the same way, in practical terms, whether they are optical (TCs) or digital (sensor size) in nature.
I absolutely hate crop sensor companies who will market their lenses by applying the crop factor to the focal length, but not the aperture. Even Apple does it on their iPhones... If you make the conscious decision to use a FF frame of reference of equivalency, you need to apply it to both aperture and focal length for the numbers to make any sense.
This leads people to make very real mistakes when comparing systems. Here are two examples of such falsehoods:
1- an R7 with the RF100-500 will gather more light and be "brighter" than an R6 + 200-800, under the assumption that the R7 system is "800mm f7.1 equivalent" and the R6 system is 800mm f9. This is simply not true.
For the numbers to make any sense in the sake of comparison of the low light capabilities, the R7 system HAS to be considered "800mm f11" equivalent, with crop factor applied to aperture as well. In fact, when cropping down to 800mm (no matter how you crop), the 100-500 does gather about 2/3rds less stops than the 200-800 at its native 800 f9. This should be obvious just by looking at the sheer size difference of their front elements!
In fact, if you do the actual math in reverse, one might say that on FF, the 200-800 performs extremely similarly, as a 500mm f5.6 would on APSC! And you'd be pretty much correct, both in DOF and light gathering! That is wildly different from the original false claim indeed!
2- An olympus with their new 600 f6.3 zoom is "like a 1200mm f6.3" in terms of low light performance. This is even more ridiculous of a claim when you see just how massive the rf1200mm f8 needs to be for FF. Saying a 600mm f6.3 on MFT can outperform it in low light is ridiculous.
If such claims were true, us astronomers would all use half inch sensors on shorter faster telescopes for deep space imaging and rival actual observatories, for "free ridiculous reach at no cost of light gathered". There's a reason why those are not the right tool for those jobs... It just doesn't work that way. I feel like these concepts come much easier to astronomers because we're used to a wider variety of optics+sensor combos, and the fact that on big scopes, just looking at the front element diameter immediately tells you about the total light gathering abilities. Our front diameter is the funnel, and the sensor is the bucket that collects from it, that's it!
Like I said, after reading many many people make these false assumptions on the internet, it really seems like where people lose the plot, is due to the fact that ISO is standardized for brightness, not signal amplification or noise, and therefore that exposure settings are the same, so "they must be gathering the same amount of light".
I applaud you for explaining all the concepts in a very clear and concise manner. Perhaps some practical examples like the ones I mentioned would've made it clearer to people who still dont quite get it yet! This is certainly a topic I encourage you to follow up on as I've never seen anyone really explain it so well.
It's funny, I've also used the "kiddie pool in the rain" metaphor myself when trying to explain this 😅! One way you can then follow it up with is that, if you consider aperture to be the intensity of the rain, well, to gather the same amount of water on the smaller kiddie pool, you need to increase the rain! Meaning, let more light in, and use an aperture on the smaller sensor that is 1/crop factor times smaller.
Your pinned comment kinda hinted at the last piece of the puzzle to finally "get it", but in my opinion this would be worth its own video, if you have the courage to go even more in depth on these convoluted concepts. If someone can do it's you lol.
In fact, there is even one step deeper down this theoretical rabbit hole, which is how *pixel size* affects all of this even further. All of these calculations technically apply to any sensor tech, and could apply just the same if you were shooting with film! All of these have nothing to do with pixel size (despite what people sometimes say), and moreso just with the total area of the sensor. But pixel size *also* matters, just in a different way!
In the real world with the current physical tech of manufacturing sensors, FF usually performs EVEN better than these calculations would predict, both because of pixel size and their inherent properties, and also simply because the best RND is usually invested in FF, because they are the high end products.
The exact numbers do vary and there is a lot of debate around them, but one can in fact expect 1-2/3rds stop beyond even what the theory of applying crop factor to aperture suggests!
Best regards Simon, this video is a gem!
In astrophotography what matters is the aperture diameter of the lens. The bigger the better. There are excellent small size sensors for astrophoto.
@@melaniezette886Of course there are great small sensors for astrophotography, just like there are great capable small sensors for regular photography as well. You can take great images nowadays even with something like a seestar 50. And especially for bright objects like planets, tiny sensors are actually great tools.
That does not mean that you can't benefit from gathering more light with a bigger sensor for astrophotography as well. You don't "need it", but you can benefit from it.
What I was saying is, there is a reason why Hubble's camera sensor is 5 feet across: it is purely due to the fact that bigger sensors can gather more total light more rapidly (meaning in shorter exposure times), as was explained in Simon's video.
Reitirating my point, it was that following the false logics described in my previous comments, one might argue that slapping a tiny smartphone sensor (say 1/3.2" with 7.61 crop factor), on a cheap 600mm f6.3 zoom, would give you a whopping "4566mm at f6.3", which is beyond misleading. You'd need a 29 inch diameter scope for that kind of performance!
Hopefully you see the point I am trying to make: that "it just doesn't work that way".
Yes, even high end dedicated prosumer sensors for astro aren't that big, because we use hours and hours of exposure anyway, so perhaps it wasn't the best example to illustrate the point. Hopefully it's clearer now 🙂
ISO behaved differently for different film sizes too, just as it does for digital. E.g, photos using the same ISO taken on 35mm & large format will look very different when the photos are viewed at the same size & viewing distance - the large format one will be much cleaner (less grain), because the number of grains per unit area IN THE PHOTO will be higher for the large format.
@@gregsullivan7408 Yes of course, like I said, it applies no matter what you are projecting onto.
I did a direct comparison using the same lens on both an APS-C and FF Sony camera. I found if you pixel peep or crop a photo a lot say 2-3-4x, the difference was clear. But most people don't do that. Only in direct comparison, that it seems like the FF image looked overall a bit better - but again that was shooting the exact same shot under the same conditions. Frankly, it was kind of hard to tell the difference.
Others have made similar comments. The way I look at it is that this presentation only (or mainly) talks about equivalence as it pertains to the photographic result in the digital file. I think this knowledge is incredibly useful, both from the DoF/framing aspect, and noise aspect. However, I agree that we have to sensibly incorporate this into how we intend to display the photos. For example, I completely agree that if we're going to print 6x4s, (or often, even much larger) any difference between the noise will usually be obliterated - we can focus on other aspects of the images. We have to apply a bit of common sense in interpreting this "equivalence" issue.
"Not to make you lust after what you don't have but help you make the most of what you do have."
That's wisdom. Given a choice between a great camera and mediocre skills vs mediocre camera in the hands of a skilled photographer, the results from the mediocre camera will be better for sure.
100% ... It's all probability distributions -- with nature photography, especially, but with everything (Photographer has little control over when a portrait subject blinks, e.g.) -- and the technical side of photography is about knowing which variables your equipment can influence and adjusting those to increase the odds of the shots that you'd like. The kit sets the limits of the parameters; being a good photographer is about working within those limits.
Great video. Each sensor format has its pros and cons, but all are sufficient for nearly all use cases when operated according to their strengths.
Very true!
Wow, really nice video! I bought myself my first real camera this month and I am sucking up as much knowledge as possible right now. Since I really like wide angle and night photography I picked up a full frame camera, the Canon Eos RP, used with a 35mm f1.8 lens for 1200€ (approx. $1280) in total. So far I am absolutely loving it, although in the beginning I had some slight buyers remorse since most videos and tutorials used sony cameras and many "best cameras for beginners" focused heavily on the a6 series, disregarding most canon and Nikon cameras altogether. A few reviewers also had a more negative opinion on the RP.
However once I started shooting more and more, most of my worries went away and I can confidently say that I love what I bought and love the pictures I get out of it. Since I only have one camera, I can't really say if I would have been as happy as I am with an apsc sensor, or even m4/3, but my way of shooting pictures fits very well and I hope I can get to the point of earning money with photography at one point.
In that regard: thank you for providing so much free information, not just on photography in and of itself, but to the business side as well!
I hope you keep on loving that choice. I bought an RP about 8 months ago. I too had a bit of buyers remorse after seeing some of the reviews on TH-cam (after I made my purchase, of course. If I could have afforded an R5 and a full suite of L-Series RF lenses I guess I would have bought that setup. But budget ultimately dictated my selection. I'm really happy with what I purchased. I just returned from a week in Southern Utah among the magnificent desert scenery there. I am delighted with what I captured, although I wish I had taken the time to study more of the tips from Simon before I headed out. Now I guess I'll need to study hard and go back! 😂 I hope you keep on getting out there and capturing what you see.
I've recently discovered this channel and Simon just gives the useful information in such a natural way without over complicating or dumbing it down. I've been watching these and even my other half who isn't interested in photography has been watching and commented on the beautiful shots used in the videos. i know its not on topic but this man deserves to be told what a great job he's doing. I'm only an in and out hobby photographer and he makes me want to grab my gear and go out and see what i can shoot! thanks Simon.
Very kind!
As a fan of longer focal length, I really like how cropped sensors can achieve telephoto distances with standard or even smaller size lenses (and I love small lenses). In the mirrorless age there's hardly such a thing as a pancake 40mm or 50mm lens for full frame, but there will be an equivalent one when you have a crop sensor camera.
Man, i download almost all of your education videos for me to watch at work (I'm an engineer) , and on the rare occasion i don't learn something new or make a note of something you said , i almost definitely get entertained and encouraged to continue photography as my art project 📷
Nice video
I'm another engineer who watches Simon's videos. You're right. ;)
You are a good man Simon .. and our enthusiasm, positivity, and deep wisdom are priceless
I think this topic is often overlooked. People give recommendations online like "Get a nifty fifty!" but never mention, that if they talk about full frame, people with APS-C sensors would need to get about an 35mm to get the "nifty fifty"-look. A 50mm on an APS-C sensor looks completely different than on a full frame. If I google something like "which focal length should I use for this and that" people recommend focal lengths but rarely mention, if they talk about full frame or APS-C. I often find that confusing, since you cant know if the person recommends the focal lengths, because they like it on their APS-C sensor, or if they used it on full frame. Or is there some silent agreement I dont know about, that if you talk about focal lengths you always talk about full frame and you need to calculate it for your sensor size yourself?
Full frame equivalent is often used as a standard, but like you point out, is a tough standard given there are more crop sensors out there than full frames.
Doing deep night bar and club photography I've never had to go above iso 3200 on m43, chose to go to 6400 or 12800 a couple times for specific effects, but 90% of images shot were at 800 iso on f0.95 lenses. First time I used my full frame s5iiX my iso never dropped beneath 3200
Good video. I think lots of beginner (and some experienced) photographers get very tangled up over equivalence. The thing to remember is that equivalence is something that photographers do in their head, it's not a thing cameras and lenses do.
A 50mm f/1.2 is a 50mm f/1.2 on a camera with a 35mm sensor, APSC 1.5x (everyone but Canon), APSC 1.6x (Canon), or 2x (M43). But the result looks different. It's only when a photographer wants to recreate something from one sensor size to another sensor size - then that's when they get involved in equivalence.
I've been shooting Fuji for so long (1.52x) that I know what a 50mm, 100m, or 10mm looks like on that sensor. It doesn't matter what it looks like on any other sizes - I don't shoot those. Equivalence plays no part in what I do.
It isn't quite as simple as that. The problem is that many people see how focal length must be understand in terms of the format used. In other words, that sensor sizes impact on how images with a certain focal length look like. The same people, however, typically fail to understand that the same is true for f-ratios and ISO settings.
@@coolcat23 It is as simple as that for @grumpyrocker because he only uses one sensor size. You don't need to learn equivalencies to learn photography. If you start with a crop sensor and remain on a crop sensor for life, you have zero need to learn anything other than how that particular sensor size affects fov, depth of field, etc.
@@europlatus Stating "A 50mm f/1.2 is a 50mm f/1.2" is as misleading as saying "100kg is a 100kg" and ignoring whether that weight has to be lifted by an ant or a human. Context matters. Of course, one can ignore equivalence when using a single format only, but a) stating "A 50mm f/1.2 is a 50mm f/1.2" remains misleading and, b) one would have to ignore notions such as "50mm is a normal focal length" and "an f/1.4 lens is a 'fast' lens".
@@europlatus so when you study photography and see the master using a 50 you don't need to know that you 50 on aps-c is not what they were using? or when you interact with photographers using FF you really think is not important to know the basic of equivalence? I use aps-c and ALWAYS think as I'm on full frame, I perfectly know my 35 1.2 is basically a 50 f2 and when I talk to others or study a photographer I always keep that in mind. I'm not shooting with a 35 1.4, I'm shooting at 50mm field of view with a f2 aperture.
As a setup to your discussion of equivalence, ISO and noise, I will suggest mentioning that the light used to make the photo is the source of noise in the photo. Noise is determined by the total light delivered to the sensor.
A smaller sensor working with the same exposure as as a larger sensor will, as you explained earlier in the video, capture less total light. Increasing exposure to f/2.5 allows the APS-C sensor camera to collect the same total light as the full-frame. Same total light equals the same noise.
ISO's role is to set the image lightness of the photo. It's not a noise source. Since the full-frame camera is working with a weaker exposure, it needs a higher ISO to make an equivalent image.
Thank you, again, for all the educational content you produce and the inspiration you provide.
There's multiple sources of noise that make it into a photo. As well as the light from the scene, there's noise from the sensor itself, and noise from the electronics which read the sensor (these latter are affected by thermals).
@@PaulMansfieldread noise is much lower than shot noise in photos. It gets lower as ISO increases unless the camera has a dual-gain sensor. Starting somewhere between ISO 400 and 800 many Nikon and Sony cameras become invariant across a wide range of ISOs. The read noise at the dual gain setting is as low as at ISO 6400 (or higher).
At very high ISOs (25600 or so) pattern read noise can become most obvious to the eye. But at lower ISOs, shot noise (determined by the total light used to make the photo) is what we see.
Definitely sounds like if you’re lacking reach because you don’t have the budget for an 800mm with a 1.4x extender, crop sensors are probably a better option for you. Thanks for the video!!!
They are, and as such, a great way to get into wildlife photography
I've been shooting FF and crop side by side for ... 2 weeks. LOL I just took possession of a crop sensor R7 to go along with my EOS-R. My "real world" swapping has told me a couple of things - 1) the R7 seems to lose out only in being a bit noisier in final image quality - but it's manageable. 2) the two cameras get very different things out of lenses - the crop sensor cuts out distortion and vignetting, but exaggerates chromatic aberration in full frame lenses. 3) a lens of marginal sharpness (like some of my vintage lenses) is going to REALLY struggle on a crop sensor. 4) I can use that extra depth of field from the crop sensor to help me with my macro photography. and 5) I love using smaller, shorter, lenses!
Having both available is a luxury, but, in the end, I find the value for money of the R7 mind blowing.
Crop sensors lenses often must be sharper than full frame lenses, and are designed with that in mind. Higher end full frame lenses usually do pretty good on small sensors because they were designed better. Crop sensors with full frame lenses only use the center part of the image and therefore cut off the soft corners, which can be a plus. APS-C has often been considered a budget option so manufacturers with APS-C and full frame options may not offer great glass or features, whereas micro four thirds manufacturers have decided their platform is also a professional platform and offer lots of features and lens options not available for APS-C.
little sensors are better for easy macro. Problably less quality, but 1/8 (1" vs ff) photos needed to full capture a perfect bug, jewel, or something like that
Have you got a video where you show your kit for landscape photography? That would be good to see! Sensor-wise I'm a massive m43 fan due to size, but do miss some of the benefits from FF!
Not yet!
This is one of the best videos on this subject I’ve seen. I rarely see a concise explanation like this that maintains the necessary context and nuance. I often find people mention one or two of these points in passing with little context which leaves the audience to debate its importance. Great work as always!
Glad it was helpful!
This is what he does. An absolute superstar.
@@vstev86 seconded. I've only recently discovered Simon, and it's almost criminal that I can get all this excellent material, presented so professionally, for free. I'm also amazed at how active he is in the comments. Don't burn yourself out Simon - you're IMPORTANT! 🤣🤣
You could mention circle of confusion, dof vs background compression and background compression when using FF lens on apsc body vs on FF body
But my video would be 30 minutes by then! Maybe another vid.
I love when people explain this topic correctly
One of the best on the subject. I'm an electronics engineer. And I look at this from a purely physical angle that makes it much easier to understand for me. A lens is a lens and it does not care what sensor is behind it. It always does the same. The thing that makes the difference is pixel density and with that pixel size on the sensor. That makes all the difference. And most photographers are more artist than scientist, so it is normal they forget about that. Simon is clearly both artist and scientist🙂. But, Simon, tell about pixel size. That is what makes the difference. Your total light argument is correct, the real reason why a FF has less noise though is pixel size. As in your analogy: each pixel on a FF is a liitle pool in its own right and the little pools are usually larger on a FF.
The crop sensor only uses a smaller piece of the image circle, there is nothing else to it. So *_everything_* is the same, really. Things get complicated when you are starting to mess with the lens settings to get an equivalent image. People, that is optics, not sensor size, don't forget that. Your Full Frame sensor can be put in crop mode so it only uses the centre piece of the sensor to make the image. Do you think that changes lens behavior? See how simple this is?
If you have 24 Mpix on a 24 x 36 mm sensor, the quick and dirty statement is that each pixel can have a maximum size of 24.10^-3 * 36.10^-3 / 24. 10^6 = 36.10^-12 (sorry, I don't know how to put formulae in a youtube comment) so the surface of a pixel can be "36 square microns". Do the same calc for an APS-C sensor. Now you have "16 square microns". That is less than half the pixel size. Less than half surface to collect light. For the proper image exposure, equivalent to full frame, the amplifier behind the sensor needs to be turned up a notch. Do this with your audio amplifier and you'll see what I mean. More noise. And that is the difference. A higher pixel density means - at equivalent state of technology - more noise on the APS-C sensor.
Another maybe easier approach. My 24 Mpix R8 uses 9 Mpix in APS-C mode. My R7 has a sensor that packs 32.5 Mpix on the same surface. No wonder the R8 has better noise perfomance. No wonder full frame is better in low light. No wonder the FF image is sharper, the lens with the same identical resolution will be much more exposed to the scrutiny of those tiny pixels on the APS-C sensor, seeing lens defects much enlarged on the image frame. Comparing a 24 Mpix FF to a 32.5 MPix APS-C is bonkers. You must compare a 83.2 Mpix FF with a 32.5 Mpix APS-C. That is the fair comparison.
My EF 24-105 f/4 L looked really good on my 10 Mpix APS-C Canon 40D. On the R7, this lens is pretty poor. On the R8 I'm back to the 40D's pixel density. And behold! It's good again! For an APS-C's sensor like the R7's, the lens must be ultra sharp and ultra good. The simple truth is Canon has difficulty making such lenses. Competition is better at it. That is probably why Canon avoids high-end APS-C and is not opening RF AF to competition, it is weakness, really. The only Canon lens I know that can keep up with the R7 sensor is the RF 28mm f/2.8 pancake. A full frame lens.
Spot on, also one last thing that most people don't get told: the size of your photo (on screen or printed).
To compare a full frame photo vs a crop photo (at the same size) would show the full frame to be cleaner. But the true size comparison shows that a big full frame photo next to a smaller crop photo would be almost exactly the same in noise etc.
i.e. a full frame printed at a2 vs a m4/3 printed at a4 would show the same levels of noise.
(assuming all other aspects like pixel size, technology, lens are the same)
That single comparison of only viewing 'at the same size' is what makes full frame seem hugely better in noise (also without talking about weight, size, cost).
I go on to say 'larger sensors give you bigger pictures'. Most people say 'larger sensors give you cleaner pictures'.
Sorry dogpa - I still disagree with you here too. 😉 Larger sensors DO produce cleaner photos, but only if they are using more light energy for the exposure than the smaller sensor. If the two sensors have the same base ISO (e.g 100), and the larger sensor is operating at that base ISO, the simple fact is that the larger sensor will be using more light than the smaller sensor, and it will produce less noise. The only way the smaller sensor could match it would be if it was capable of a lower ISO than the larger sensor.
It's important to note, however, that if the two cameras are using the same ISO, they will be taking different photos. (e.g, different DoF, or different motion blur).
@@gregsullivan7408 OK, try this to understand what I'm saying. Take a normal photo. Now make a copy of that photo and crop it down to a quarter the size (crop a 25% size frame, throw out 75%). Now magnify the cropped photo next to the normal photo so they come out at the same size.
Notice the cropped photo has more noise? Why is that? (remember: the photo hasn't changed in light collection or camera).
@@dogpadogpait HAS changed in total light energy. I think you are confusing light intensity, and brightness. Yes - that cropped image was exposed with the same BRIGHTNESS, but the light ENERGY (brightness X area X time) is four times less. The "equivalence" relationship is that if the same light ENERGY is the same, the noise will be the same.
So, if the two sensors have the same resolution, DESPITE the fact that the brightness experienced by the larger sensor will be less (higher f-stop, thus higher ISO), the noise will be the same, because the signal to noise ratio of the larger photosites is proportionally better than those in the smaller sensor. And, if the resolutions are different, it's still the same, due to the fact that noise is reduced when down sampling, & increased (visually) when up sampling. As I've said elsewhere - when we have different resolutions, we have a choice as to how to proceed - keep the resolution until final rendering, or resample up front etc etc
@@gregsullivan7408 What I'm saying is you're not changing the original file. The light hasn't changed in anyway, but your viewing has. Or this is the same: print a photo at a4, print the exact same photo at a2. The bigger you print the more noise you'll 'see' because you're magnifying your view.
Or this too: view an image. Zoom in to the same image. The zoom is noisier (even though NOTHING has changed in the image).
When I first started playing around with photography about a year and a half ago the whole “crop factor” thing really threw me for a loop. Lenses kept bringing crop factor up all the time as did sensor size discussions. As my genre was astrophotography diving deep into this whole mess was ultimately very useful for me as I was also building raspberry pi astro cams mated to my Nikon lenses so figuring the math out on all this helped me quite a bit.
This winter has been a complete astro bust for me so I recently started shooting random things on my daily walks which has forced me to become way more fluent in “normal” photography skills and talking points.
I understand have come understand why my brother, who is a photographer, kept telling me to forget about crop factor as the only camera I’m shooting with is APS-C and therefore crop factor is irrelevant. This was initially irritating because I couldn’t see the truth of it. This topic only matters when you are using different sensor sizes as I do on my astrophotography AND you are trying to keep as much stuff the same across your lens/sensor combinations.
If you aren’t swapping your lens to different sensor sizes then don’t worry about it … just figure out the lenses and sensors you are using. But … if you are switching it up across lenses and sensors and want the same framing, exposure, depth of field, etc., then this video is super helpful to clarify stuff if you don’t want to crawl into the math.
Super clear and helpful.
I shoot a Nikon Z9 and one of the things I like is that I can use a function button to quickly shift from Full Frame mode to DX mode quickly. While it get fewer megapixels I can still get the look of a cropped sensor. Just a hobbyist so MPs are still good enough for computer slide shows and normal print sizes.
Why would you do this? You can always "crop" after the photo was taken. The only reason to change the setting is because you have a crop lens and it is causing an image loss.
I shoot m43 and this is one of the best explanations I seen so far. Always enjoy your content.
You are spot on when saying equivalence is often misunderstood, Unfortunately, some folks see equivalence as a method for determining which format is best - often arriving at the conclusion that full-frame is best. In fact, equivalence is simply a method for determining the settings needed for different format cameras to make the same photo.
Rather than making the case that one format is better than another, equivalence sheds light on how different formats can deliver the same output.
And it also sheds light on the types of situations where equivalence will be impossible, which will guide one to the most appropriate equipment for a particular situation
Excellent comment, really nailed it.
Make no mistake, though, for certain scenarios and applications, larger formats are better in practice. Note that the main difference between the IMAX format and regular cinema formats is the size of the negative. Theoretically, one could achieve the same quality with a smaller format (especially when using a digital format), but it becomes increasingly more difficult and expensive to match the quality of a large format with a smaller format, the higher the crop factor is.
@@coolcat23 Yes, there are scenarios in which a larger format camera will be the better choice. However, equivalence doesn't get you to that conclusion. Consideration of a combination of factors including the demands of the photo and the needs & interests of the photographer will.
Honestly I don't see the appeal for other sensor size other than FF.
If photographer focus on the image it produces, m43 can produce stunning ones as well.
What FF advantage lies is that there are so much options.
You can have full sized pro bodies, or light weight small bodies like a7cii, huge amount of lens from first and third parties, adapting legacy lens without any crop (and big second hand market)
In some way I think most should treat camera gear like a car, you want it to have strong second hand market.
I grabbed a few premium voigtlander lens because their owner couldn't do manual focus.
I got the 35apo for $600, 99% new and the previous owner got it for 1 month only. 40 1.2 at $500.
Completely understanding crop factor can help you shoot much better on an APS-C sensor, sometimes outdoing a full frame camera. One of my favourite tricks is increasing exposure by roughtly 70% using a full frame to APS-C adapter. Great for low light situations, especially with video. I still do this today at 28MP on a a7RIV.
Is that using a "speed booster"? I.e the adaptor actually has a lens, which concentrates the FF image onto the APS-C sensor?
@@gregsullivan7408 yes
Best channel ever. thank you
Wow, thanks!
1:11 My OCD cannot handle the measurements of the sensors on the wrong axis.
The APS-C measurements he says are for his Canon cameras are also completely wrong.
True!
I'd really love to see a video from you where you rent/borrow a high-end M43 camera (like an OM-1 or a Panasonic G9-II) and just shoot with it for a week to see your comments on its use.
I’ve been offered one! will do some day!
Wow wow wow. I think this is so far the most understood on the differences between full & crop frame in terms of photography.
Go for full frame when you want to add videos but the best advice I had from SIMON is "invest in quality lenses" thanks Senior❤
Guess you don't know about how good the panny's are for video.
I’ve basically waited 20 years for this simple explanation. Merci Simon!
Finally, a correct explanation of crop factor and focal length and aperture. The "equivalent image" will be slightly different....physics does not change with "crop factor".
Great video overall Simon, as always, but there are still some misconceptions about APS-C that I have learned about since I switched from Full Frame to APS-C some years ago:
You don't need a larger aperture on cropped sensors to have the same bokeh size than on full-frame with the same framing, you only need to move away from your subject.
That's ALL you need to do. (proof below)
There will be more distance compression in the image, but the bokeh will be of the same size (as blurry) and the framing of the photograph will be the same, with the subject being of the same size in your picture (but the background looking closer).
Please do this test in the DoF simulator web to verify it yourself and hopefully make a video about it:
On the DoF simulator, first set the bokeh simulation on the top right to 9 blades diaphragm and check Auto.
Then set a preset with this specifications: Full Frame sensor, lens focal length f=200mm, lens aperture f/2.8, model distance 500cm, background distance 1600cm (background scaling enabled) then save the setting (+Add).
Now do a second preset with this specs: Camera model Fujifilm X-T3 (crop x1.53 APS-C), focal length f=200mm, lens aperture f/2.8, model distance 765cm, background distance 1865cm (background scaling enabled) then save the setting (+Add).
Now compare one preset to the other visually.
You'll notice the framing is the same, the model is the same size in the photograph and the bokeh balls are of the same size on both presets (same blurriness in the background).
The only difference will be the distance compression, which will make the background look closer in the APS-C camera and the model features slightly more compressed (which can be a problem or not depending on the subject and your preferences).
This is a very important point nobody seems to understand: you only need a faster aperture on APS-C if you absolutely want the exact same distance to subject and distance compression than on Full-Frame, but if you're willing to just increase your distance to your subject, you can use the exact same lens, exact same focal distance and aperture and get the exact same bokeh size as with Full-Frame cameras.
You don't need faster lenses, just multiply the distance to your subject by the crop factor and you're golden.
WHY: This happens because, since the APS-C final image is cropped compared to Full Frame, given the exact same distance, focal length and aperture, you would get the same result as a cropped Full Frame image in post production. Since the image is cropped but you look at it at the same final physical size as the Full Frame photograph, not only the model will look physically bigger but the bokeh will be bigger too (since you are effectively zooming in the final image). Now if on APS-C you increase the distance to your subject and redo the photograph without touching anything else, the bokeh will be smaller than before, cancelling the zoom-in effect of the cropped final image, giving a final bokeh of the same size as the Full Frame photograph on a cropped sensor camera while keeping the same framing.
calculations:
aps-c model distance = (full frame model distance) x (crop factor)
aps-c background distance = (aps-c model distance) - (full frame model distance) + (full frame background distance)
Also some notes I have learned from experience using APS-C lenses:
APS-C lenses definitively cover a smaller physical size than full frame lenses. Just check any review of an APS-C lens on Sony cameras where you can switch from FF to APSC mode and you'll see that most APS-C lenses don't usually cover the whole full frame image (there is a circular crop all around), which makes them smaller, lighter and cheaper to manufacture.
Full-Frame lenses look much worse on APS-C cameras than specific APS-C lenses, even if the Full-Frame lenses are much more expensive and look great on FF.
This is because the APS-C sensor, being smaller, needs different chromatic aberration adjustments on the lens to focus all wavelengths correctly. Also, APS-C lenses need to resolve the same definition than FF but on a smaller size. Thus, it's not a good idea to use FF lenses on APS-C or vice-versa.
I’m always willing to give a fresh pair a eyes a crack at it, so I tried your experiment. unfortunately, the depth of field for the full frame is 20cms for the full frame, and 32 cms for the crop sensor, and while the background is larger in the crop sensor, it is also more detailed and in focus. Try the « city » background and look at the window frames in the sky scraper…much more defined.
@@simon_dentremont of course the depth of field is different, but the size of the bokeh in the final image is the same (the actual size in pixels of the blurriness). The background looking closer however, makes it larger on the final image. It's not that it's more defined, it's that it's physically larger.
Here's where terminology can trip you up again. You say that to get the same (shallow) DOF in a smaller sensor you need a 'wider' aperture. Actually you need the same aperture (aperture is the size of the 'hole' through which the light passes - the entrance pupil) but since the focal length is smaller to get the same framing, the same aperture means a smaller f-number, since f-number is focal length divided by aperture. Yes, I know we all say 'aperture' when we really mean 'f-number', but the two terms aren't synonymous - and it's this tyre of discussion where you can trip over this. Anyhow, apart from that point, great video.
Think about if your camera was a black box - you don't know what is going on inside. All your photography is controlled by what is happening in front of the lens - the camera to subject distance, the angle of view, the size of the aperture and the exposure time. It's only because our standard camera controls insist on you knowing what's going on inside that we have these issues.
True!
Spot on. They’re tools. They have their advantages and disadvantages… pick the tool for the job. M4/3 can be helpful for travel and landscape since they’re often lighter and you can stabilize a smaller sensor easier , plus f/4 is f/8 DOF. However for portraits, the compression of a 50mm lens is just different than a 25mm lens (m4/3). Not to mention, like you said, there is no equivalent to a 50mm f/1.4 on m4/3
Incorrect - if there WAS an F0.7 25mm lens available, the photos would then look identical (or very very similar).
Finally someone who has some common sense. Each time I try to explain these nuances on the comment section (looking at Tony and Chelsea Northrup channel) I get swarmed and murdered 😂
I stumbled on an old email where I explained all this equivalence stuff to a photographer friend (an actual real life friend 😉) - I was expecting thanks & gratitude, but their response was "it's clear that your interest in photography is at the opposite end of the spectrum to mine". So I rushed back to the internet where I'm more at home. 🤣🤣
there's another point to make in favour of smaller sensors: it's easier to get more stuff in focus without difraction blur ruinning detail. So for landscape and street photography they are better in some situations, mostly for people who are not interested in out of focus areas. I know difraction starts showing up earlier in a m43 sensor than in a full frame (on one it starts at f11 while on the other at f16), but a m43 at f8 will show a wider depth of field than a full frame at f13, so in the end it's worth it
This is an interesting topic. I would be very interested in a video (or article) that discusses these aspects - i.e - can we generalise about how lens imperfections are affected by the mount/sensor size?
@@gregsullivan7408 i dont know if you can generalize it (yes in theory but not in practicace), but i once saw a long video of an spanish guy who did all the testing and those were the results: crop cameras are better for keeping everything in focus
the way I see things is that an f2.8 on full frame corresponds to an f2.8 on crop sensors because they give the same exposure, the consequences on depth of field and noise are just features of one format or the other, for example one may even prefer a deeper depth of field, or even a more grainy photo. the real indisputable advantage of full frame for me is mode detail, more resolution....even for the same nominal resolution and with comparable quality lenses.....anyway, your explanation is impeccable!
This is the best summary I’ve seen on this topic.
I think a big problem is too many try to 'normalize' everything to ff. The different sensor sizes are, well, different which does affect depth of field because differentfocal lengths show a different magnification/field of view but focal length is focal length. Ditto aperture is aperture but the depth of field is differentbecauseof different focal length. Unfortunately this leads to all sorts of ideas, it's much better to work with focal length and aperture and work with your format rather than trying to think in ff.
Thanks, Simon. This is a great starting point for explaining the difference between full-frame and DX lenses and changing the image size on cameras that have that feature.
The kind of explanation i was looking for! Thank you so much for being so clear ❤
Once again, he takes a very complicated and convoluted subject and simplifies it so that anyone can understand it. Great job, Simon.
As a very dedicated Olympus/OM System Micro Four Thirds shooter, I've seen a lot of discussions of "crop factor" - many spreading incorrect or even malicious information. However, this video, and your explanation, is the clearest, most accurate, and unbiased I've seen and I will refer it to others as a reference.
The only thing I would offer is that your explanations involving depth of field does seem to be biased towards the position that shallower DOF is better, if only because you explain what must be done with crop sensors to get as shallow of DOF as a given FF lens/f-stop combination. I think it would be just as valid to point out that crop sensor cameras have the advantage in cases where greater DOF is desired. It is, as you said, dependent on your type of photography. Thank for a really helpful and clear video.
I think your own biases are muddying his words. FF is the standard all equipment is measured by, even for larger than FF. In most of his videos, he doesn't say shallower is better, just its typically more desirable by people in general, which is true. He points out the FF equivalency for crop sensors since a shallow depth of field on FF can easily be stopped down, while smaller sensors it is more difficult to go from deep to shallow, as well as wider FOVs, both caused by the unavoidable physical limitation of size. As he pointed out earlier, some equivalent lenses for crop sensors simply don't exist to achieve an equivalent setting on FF. I.e. FF can be made to shoot like a crop sensor, but crop sensors can't shoot like FF, so FF is technically "more versatile" as FF can buy lenses to look like crop, or even just digitally crop. If the type of photography doesn't need the versatility or range that FF covers, then it doesn't really matter. I shoot Fuji X and have no need for ultra wide capabilities or big bokeh for portraits
@@liquid74 Your explanation is correct, but I don't think I was speaking from any bias. My point was simply that shallow DOF by default is not better than a wider DOF, nor would I agree that it is more desirable by the majority of people. It depends on what you are shooting. Many types of landscape and macro photography benefit from wide DOF, and just as crop sensors struggle at the very shallow end to match FF, FF can force you into extremely small apertures with correspondingly slow shutter speeds (and/or higher ISOs) to match the DOF of crop sensor cameras - especially MFT. In the end it's all good, and the beauty of this video is as Simon said, not to make you unhappy with what you have but to know how to use it to get the images you want. Thanks.
@@liquid74who is muddring which waters? So called "fool frame" would more correctly called "digital small format" since the sensor size is the same size as the film frames on analog small format cameras. Those small film frames were "cropped" compared with medium format film and large format film cameras, the ones that exposed film.
In the digital age calling something "cropped" shows a bias. And the words we use both influence and reflect or thoughts. When digital cameras were being developed to replace analog film SLR cameras, calling them digital small format cameras would be a tough sell. So clever marketing folks decided to call them "full frame" which sounded positive and everything else was then, via marketing, called a cropped sensor both apsc and micro four thirds. And when this idea got caught onto fool franes started to think hey we can use this as a standard ..
Fujifilm and Hasselblad have digital cameras with larger sensors than full frame/digital small format cameras. These Fujifilm and Hasselblad cameras are MARKETED as medium format....but this is better called digital medium format since the size of the sensor is smaller than analog film medium format. So...suppose Fujifilm and Hasselblad de factor standard for digital medium format would start to become called "full frame" what would we call digital small format cameras the ones fool framers call full frame today? Well they would be cropped sensors.....
@@joestrahl6980 Wow - is this well said!! Most don't know that we got the 35mm film format because an assistant to Thomas Edison slit 2.75" in half and added sprocket holds for movie production. It was convenient and arbitrary - nothing scientific to somehow prove that 35mm gave the "perfect" DOF or resolution or anything else. Those things were never considered. The first still cameras to adopt this format were derisively called "miniature format" and were not considered to be a big enough image for any serious or professional use. It took into the WWII war years when the smaller size of 35mm camera bodies and lenes were seen as an advantage over standard format systems. With familiarity, 35mm became "standard", but old standards are replaced by better ones over time. Do we see any parallels today between so-called "full frame" and ASP-C or MFT? This is getting way off from Simon's video, but technology is relentless, and before long, the will be no practical image quality differences between MFT, ASP-C, and FF, and therefore the majority of photographers will find little reason to carry unnecessarily large bodies and lenes.
@@joestrahl6980 you still entirely missed my point. We use those terms because they are standard terminology in modern day that the general population can easily find information on. Calculations are relative to FF as the starting point or equivalency. Simon uses them so he can make great videos. It's not hard to not be obtuse and pedantic. Referring to it as "Fool frame" is more than just muddying and bias, it's closer to elitism and fanboying that isn't useful to anyone
I recently moved to Alaska and was getting into photography again after not doing it for a while, I expected it to be easy but I was quickly overwhelmed as it was the first time I've had to shoot in very dark conditions. Your videos have helped me the most and allowed be to actually get the photos that I want so I can share the experiences that I have here with my friends and family in the lower 48, Thank you so much.
Your channel has been such an invaluable source to me as a "newbie" learning on my first "real camera" setup. Thank you for all you do!
Great to hear!
Exactly the vid I needed right now. I had a grasp of it sufficient to apply it, but now I understand well enough to be able to explain it - and the crop squared for iso isn't something I knew, I just adjusted till it looked ok. Fantastic work, probably the definitive clip on the subject on this platform.
Glad it was helpful!
I feel like I can always tell the lens distortion on apsc. It’s very slight but noticeable. I prefer the natural look of full frame.
Excellent explanation. I learned this way back in the days of film when dealing with 35mm, 2 1/4, 5x4 and large formats. Using film, it can become critical when dealing with exposure values, focus fall off and vignetting that is difficult to correct or compensate for in a wet lab.
There is no other youtube channel, where I can get so much knowledge conveyed in a simple way. Thank you so much for sharing this with us. Greetings from Poland, mr Simon ;)
Hi Simon. Great explanation on a most controversial subject. I shoot on an APSC sensor (Fujifilm). What is most important to me is letting in the most light to my smaller sensor. Hence, fast glass with large apertures, f1.2, f1.4 etc. are important to me & being able to shoot at a lower ISO is a side benefit of fast glass. Your videos & teaching style is exemplary. Best wishes & safe travels.😊
Simply put: a longer lens gives less depth of field: because you look for the same frame, you use a 50mm on a FF and a 25mm on a M43 sensor. The 50mm is double the length, so, 1/2 of the Depth of field. About the same is true for aperture as the "Stop Systems" is meant to convert aperture steps, focal length and ISO Steps into equivalent effects by definition.
I would be petty cautious in applying conversions to aperture when it comes to "light collected", unless you are mounting specifically "Cinema Lenses"; F/ stops is a theoretical value, but doesn't take into account glass absorption so that a f/2.8 zoom could easily be closer to a f/3.5 or more in real life, especially when compared to a very simple prime lens. Cinema Lenses use T/Stop values, which are determined in a lab on the actual lens, so that any T/2.8 lens will actually perform as true F/2.8 and can be switched with any other T/2.8 lens, including prime lenses, macro or whatever, without the need to adjust any setting in the camera.
Finally ISO is the trickiest part: no sensor is identical to another, pixel density also affect the result (a 20MP M43 sensor has more density then a 60MP Sony FF sensor). Stacked sensors, technology, the type of Band Cutting filter in front of the sensor itself, and, obviously, the the actual light performance of the lens (T/Stop) can all affect the noise and the light gathering capabilities in the final image.
I just tried researching this topic a couple of days ago and could not find the right info. Thank you for making this easy to understand.
I have been binge watching your channel and have learnt so much 🙏🏼
Much better explanation than some I have seen. A shame you could not borrow an Olympus/OM System camera or a Panasonic G to actually show micro four thirds and compare. Also to round it all out having a Fujifilm GFX camera would have made it complete 😊.
I have a Panasonic Lumix G9 with two card slots and a top display. *Looks* as professional as any but my 100-300 zoom (200-600 on digital small format) is a great weight and space saver !
For me as a mft shooter my only real problem is low light. But since I seldom shoot in those circumstances it is seldom a problem for me and the benefits of a smaller and lighter kit are important for me and some others. While not the sensor per se and "equivalence" discussions micro four thirds cameras have two advantages that some who do not use the fornat know/ think about. On the larger body mft cameras, make greater image stabilization is possible because of the smaller sensor. Also the smaller sensor can have much faster read speeds when filming video with much less heating. Also with the pixel shift technology in some mft cameras now if the subject is still and your camera is on a tripod the cameras can easily produce 40 megapixel images. Or higher.
In the end the different sensor standards have advantages and drawbacks delending on the genre and the individual needs of the photographer .
I shoot micro 4/3 and it wasn't until recently that the benefit of what you were saying about iso and shutter speed was explained to me better regarding crop sensors. In many instances for portrait photography a full frame shooter may stop down a prime to get a large depth of field. With a crop sensors the need to stop down for that reason is negated and you'll get the larger amount of light because crop isn't factored into the exposure.
Finally a video that explains the differences perfectly. I shoot FF and M 4/3. There are features on my OM-1 that just cannot be found in the full frame world. I also prefer it for wild life and nature photography.
Okay, I've bookmarked this video for further review just to ensure I get this right. Man, Simon you have the gift for explaining even the more complicated subjects. I'll let this new info rattle around in my brain for a while, in the hope I can generalize the knowledge you shared. Heeding your warning I read your pinned comment before watching the video. Very helpful. Thank you for the mental workout, it's much appreciated.
Man, I just love your content! The way you speak is so pleasing
Glad you enjoy it!
I appreciate this video. I feel that the online photography (or gear?) community is letting newcomers down, pushing everyone to invest in gear they might need, instead of encouraging them to enjoy and improve their photography.
I've been shooting with both APS-C, full frame, and now MFT, and I've tried out five different brands, starting with Canon (DSLRs, 800D and 80D), Fujifilm (XT3), Nikon (Z5), and now a Panasonic G9 and Olympus Om-D E-m5 III.
I'm shooting documentary, architecture, and portraits. What I've learned is that the sensor size matters less, but for each of these genres other things have been much more crucial, from having a compact camera and lenses, to have something that is easy to bring with me (which offers flexibility), and lighting. Any of the cameras/brands I've been using would suffice for most of it, but I settled with MFT for the following reasons:
It's compact. True, the G9 is the same size as most full frame cameras, but the lenses are smaller. And the G9 is one of the largest MFT cameras to be found. Most MFT cameras are small and compact, while offering great features, particularly when it comes to stabilization.
It offers flexibility. Because it's so compact and less heavy, I am able to bring much more gear with me. Not only when it comes to lenses (I literally bring a 7.5mm lens, a 15mm lens, and a 45mm lens (15mm, 30mm, and 90mm respectively in full frame terms) with me not taking more space than my 35mm f1.8 Nikon lens did. When I'm out doing larger projects I can easily bring both my cameras with me, zoom lenses covering the 24mm to 600mm range, as well as tripod, filters and even my drone. I don't have to consider whether I want to cover this or that end of the focal range, or whether I should bring zooms or primes, in worst case scenario I just put one of the primes in my pocket.
It's cheaper. I'm not professional so the budget is limited. When I sold my full frame gear I got rid of a Nikon Z5 and five lenses, which didn't cover all ranges. For that money I got two cameras, covering all my needs, as well as seven lenses covering focal lengths from 15mm to 600mm.
Great features. Both cameras have amazing IBIS. There are a lot of features that I still haven't been able to use yet, but I have so much more options to be creative than I had with my Z5, which as new costs the same as the G9. I don't have to bring my tripod with me because the IBIS is so much better than the Z5 (even though the IBIS in the Z5 is good, just not as good). The IBIS is better because of the smaller sensor size, making it easier to stabilize the sensor.
Video. The Panasonic G9 is an amazing video camera, even today.
What I know that I had to give up:
The "better image quality". Full frame sensors do offer better image quality, but not much and not so much as being an issue for me. Again, it really depends on what you are doing, but if you're not earning money from your photography and you know the technicalities, then you really don't get "better image quality" with a full frame camera to the extent that it's worth it. And since most newer MFT cameras have high resolution options the higher pixel count of full frame sensors aren't that crucial. To be honest, I have an easier time to edit my Nikon raw files than my Oly or Panasonic raw files, and I can push them further, but I rarely have to do so, and knowing that I can do multiple exposures or high resolution shots basically mean I end up being able to do the same with those files, I just have to take one extra step.
I won't be able to reach the same depth of fields shot as I did with my full frame camera. This can be an issue in very rare cases, but I don't miss it. Whenever I do portraits, I would always stop down to f5.6 or f8 anyway, in order to make sure that everything is in focus. Sure, the beautiful artistic shots where the in focus smoothly runs out of focus is hard to obtain, but not impossible. I am going to invest in an f0.9 lens (Voigtlander, love them), which will allow this to be done, but it's very rare I do these kind of portraits. My focus is on the story telling via props and the lighting.
Cases where I absolutely would reconsider MFT:
If my style demanded very shallow depth of focus or if I shot professionally for high end clients, then I would go with full frame or even medium format. Particularly if I did studio work. If I did large printing, if I would have to do a lot of cropping (take one shot, get it all in there), then I would go with full frame or medium format. If I did a lot of low light photography I would go with full frame.
Generally, if I did professional photography I would probably go with full frame, depending on where I lived. Not so much because of the sensor size, but because gear would be more available, and in these cases I would go with Canon, Nikon, or Sony. This would allow me the option to easily replace gear, to get it insured, to rent gear when needed, etc.
When people make videos like this, which is a great and informative video, I wish there would be more emphasis on the "do you need this?" or "when and how do you need this". When I was new I had no clue. I wasn't aware that f4 on a full frame could give a nice out of focus background, depending on what I shot, and that f1.8 on APS-C would do the same - or the other way around. Or that it's more crucial to think about composition, that the background actually might be important for the story, etc.
I don't want people to invest in MFT, unless that it's the right choice for them. I do miss my full frame camera, there is definitely miss the system. But the push for everything to be full frame and that being promoted as "the perfect sensor" or system is problematic. Most people can't afford to invest in the full frame system with all the lenses that often is being promoted. And most are not fully aware of the strengths and downfalls of the various systems and how it applies to their needs.
This terminology is refedenced to 35mm still film photography where the film is run horizontally through the camera. Cinematographers REMEMBER, we run the 35mm film vertically through the camera so standard frame is super 35 for the vast majority of motion picture films. This is approximately equal to APS-C. So when talking about motion picture lenses historically, they are, most likely talking about the super 35 frame. If I want the Steven Spielberg look I will go with a 21mm lens on an APS-C sensor. Apply reverse crop factor on "full frame" still camera in video mode...say 35mm.
So the reality for the crop sensor operator is that the only significant factor is the crop. The 70-200m on my 90D is a very useful lens for my wildlife photography but suffers somewhat when looking for a wider file of view. My 18-135mm works better there. But the question of equivalency is rather academic for me. The picture I compose is based upon the camera lens combo I'm using. And that would be the case regardless of the format.
I'm not going to be replacing my 90D anytime soon. It works very well. Would my next camera be a full frame? Probably. But not because of any perceived shortcomings with the crop sensor format. I think that something can be said for having my 70-200mm meet its standard field of view. In fact I was considering the Canon 100-400mm before buying the 70-200mm. I'm glad I didn't. The narrow filed of view would have put me at quite the disadvantage where I shoot.
Ideia equivocada: um sensor Full frame não capta mais luz que um sensor aps-c porque a luz passa pela lente e converge para o sensor. Os raios de luz não são paralelos mas convergentes. O maior desfoque de fundo na full frame é devido ao maior ângulo do sensor, não da lente.
Finally a proper video that puts this debate to rest. Because you are right, it is all about equivalency!
Saying that the aperture is always depending on the crop factor would basically mean that the size of the sensor somehow has a direct influence on the size of the physical hole the light shines through as it passes through the lens. Which makes zero sense!
And about the exposure, of course it stays the same, independant from the sensor size. I've seen some people making a crucial mistake when they compared this between APS-C and 35mm cameras. They used different lenses. Like an APS-C 35mm f/1.8 and a full frame 35mm f/1.8. Naturally this does have an effect on the exposure because even though focal length and aperture are the same, those two lenses can have different light transmission...
Excellent. Just a freakin' excellent presentation. Crop sensors don't affect exposure. Ever. Never has, never will. But as you explain, it does affect equivalency in other artistic parts of a photograph. Your video won't stop the debate commentary, but it is spot on and it will answer questions for those that want the true answers, and desire to move on. Well done.
In short: yes, you should apply crop factor to calculate DoF, but only if that matters for your case or style.
Another great video Simon!
Thanks for sharing!
Definitely one of the best explanations of crop factor I have seen. I have recently switched from Canon full frame to an OM-1. As someone who primarily shoots macro the M4/3 and Olympus/OM Systems bodies and glass work beautifully. I have also started dabbling in bird photography; the extra reach and light weights of the m4/3 are a huge bonus. Now that I am learning how to properly expose the OM-1, the high ISO performance is much better than I expected from the smaller sensor. Do I miss features of my full-frame gear? Of course. Would I switch back, probably not
I use a 90D. Its arguably the best DSLR Canon has ever made in terms of live tracking, video performance, and bang for your buck. It is a crop sensor. But I get fantastic results, and shooting at amusement parks and the zoo make the extra reach more valuable than the loss of wideness on the near end. That said, I eventually want a full frame to have one of both. Seems necessary if you’re a pro or extreme hobbyist.
I moved to full frame and it is a better format. I only have two lenses and they may be all I need. The low light capabilities are good. I can also use the video side. Mainly used for wildlife and landscape. Yes cost may be higher but quality is something you pay for. And it make me appreciate what I have. So it is better value at the end of the day.
Thanks a lot Simon, your channel is really informative as well as fun to watch!
With respect to shutter speed and ISO, however, I found your explanations somehow confusing. When you are compensating the smaller size of a cropped sensor by decreasing the focal length, then, in the end, the viewing angle is preserved. The associated lower f-value can be understood as a consequence of the fact the the f-value is the ratio of focal length and the diameter of the aperture.
However, when viewing angle and aperture diameter remains the same, so does the total amount of light and therefore, the shutter speed does not have to be adjusted!
If this means that ISO has to be adjusted since ISO is somehow defined in terms of f-value, so be it. This only means that ISO values cannot be compared across different sensor size and ISO 100 on a cropped sensor corresponds to ISO 200 on a full frame WITHOUT any loss of image quality! So, by definition, with a larger sensor, you get more quality per ISO. The mentioned benefits such as higher dynamic range comes on top of that!
Or is it me who got something wrong?
One point you didn’t mention is metering. Metering while in crop mode in camera will be more accurate vs cropping in post.
Regarding the aperture convention of 'F numbers'. Many beginners are puzzled by this apparently strange numbering system. If you do the maths, it turns out that each F number results in twice (or half) the AREA of the of the aperture opening. This means a consistent increase or decrease in exposure regardless of focal length. So f/2.8 is twice the area of f/4 and four times the area of f/5.6 etc. This applies regardless of crop factor. In fact, I tested this by setting my zoom lens on my M43 camera to 25mm, taking an exposure in controlled lighting in manual mode and then swapping to an old canon FD 24mm vintage lens and using the same aperture setting as on the zoom lens, the 2nd exposure was identical to within a quarter of a stop. So, apertures are the same for a given focal length regardless of the crop factor of the body. You can't change physics 😂.
Another comprehensive, clearly presented video. Thanks Simon.
I gotta say, I love your videos. I took a photography class in high school, and loved it so much I got another class changed to T.A. for the photo teacher. We used Nikon D60 and Nikon D3000. On the 5th of this month my wife bought me a Canon Rebel T7 DSLR, just in time to re-learn how to use it for the eclipse. I was able to get an amazing photo. I'm learning so much about this camera plus all of the other photography tech I've missed out on in the years thanks to your videos. For some subjects, it's just a refresher, but for something like crop factor it's nice to hear it explained concisely and easily to help me understand what's inside /my/ camera.